As determined from earlier discussions, the retag privilege serves a lot more confusion and a lot less of its benefit due to the suggested edit system. It must be done away with. It will be done away with. ♪

In light of this decided course of action, we're going to need a new snack for the road between "Create Tags" at 300 reputation and "Established User" at 1000 reputation. We'd like your help in thinking about some ideas on what would be a nice privilege to sit at this level. Since we're... a bit dry on our end.

The primary guideline in deciding what kind of privilege to put here is acknowledging its position in the overall hierarchy of privileges. 500 reputation is an early-intermediate user, one who has started to really get the hang of the site and its function. It can be something that provides convenience in how they currently can act on the site, or it could be some new functionality that fits as an early ability (especially considering there's no new abilities until 2000 reputation's "Edit Everywhat" ability).

Can we propose restricting something that currently isn't restricted, rather than allowing something that they currently can't do? Like, say, prohibiting feature requests on meta until you have 500 rep?
–
ServyJun 27 '13 at 20:07

5

@Servy Go nuts. Propose whatever you think makes sense. However, you probably want to spend more time justifying your suggestion if you're aiming to restrict something currently available rather than, say, introduce a new feature or unlock an ability that normally comes later.
–
Anna Lear♦Jun 27 '13 at 20:08

Are we talking about Stack Overflow or all Stack Exchange sites?
–
DuncanJun 28 '13 at 7:49

@Duncan It'll be a privilege that will be put across all sites on the same threshold point.
–
Grace Note♦Jun 28 '13 at 12:20

1

@ShaWizDowArd We're looking at a couple of these as options at the moment but haven't fully settled on a choice yet, so I don't really want to specify any in particular in the chance that we, well, decide to switch to a different one. Our plan seems to be making a decision next week, given the fact that most are out this end-of-week for the holidays.
–
Grace Note♦Jul 5 '13 at 11:09

Perhaps it would be better to swap viewing +/- votes from 1k to 500
and put the first post/late answer reviews at the 1k level. It seems
the majority of people think that 500 is a bit low.

-Insert by Grace Note & Laura

This is what we have selected after much discussion, and it is now enabled network-wide.

Some users who participated in the review queues at 125 reputation will now be unable to do so, but we ran a query before making this change, and most reviewers have more than 500 rep anyway. Philosophically, we agree that it makes more sense for these queues to be accessible by people who have been on the site for a little bit longer – especially for the First Posts queue.

Here's why we chose this suggestion over the others posted here:

The SE team all thought it was a good idea. We were split on whether some of the other suggestions were a good idea, but were in agreement on this one.

It was easy to implement. You guys gave us some food for thought, but some of the other suggestions would take a lot more discussion, planning, and developer time to implement. We'll keep them in mind for the future, though.

Given that the first posts review queue is almost always empty and that they have to add audits to prevent roboapprovers, I'd actually also vote for raising the bar. +1 It also makes better sense to first open for voting down and then, a little later, start introducing actual reviews.
–
user213634Jun 28 '13 at 16:08

To be fair didn't they add audits to all the review queues to prevent roboapprovers?
–
Joe WJun 28 '13 at 17:18

I think it (along with Late Answers) should be 1k. 500 seems too low, and there's really nothing interesting at 1k.
–
DoorknobJun 29 '13 at 2:11

6

@Doorknob perhaps it would be better to swap viewing +/- votes from 1k to 500 and put the first post/late answer reviews at the 1k level. It seems the majority of people think that 500 is a bit low.
–
apaul34208Jun 29 '13 at 2:21

5

First posts review works well as a place for people with little reputation but who want to get involved in Stack Exchange to contribute. The “blind leading the blind” don't even know that review exists.
–
GillesJun 30 '13 at 9:16

4

Not sure how much I like this, because the reviews work well on smaller graduated sites without any issues from robo reviewers. However, the query part reassures me :) This has the possibility of reducing entry into reviewing (as in, while the number of people reviewing now are more or less the same, the intake of dedicated reviewers could be less), but it has a greater possibility of making it look oh-so-shiny and have people wanting the privilege.
–
ManishearthJul 26 '13 at 15:31

1

I'm not convinced changing this makes since, and looking at the vote count, neither is everyone else. This might make sense on Stack Overflow, but I don't think it does elsewhere. Is robo-reviewing that huge of a problem (other than on Stack Overflow)? I'm really tired of you changing things because it's a problem on SO, while it usually isn't elsewhere.
–
ɥʇǝSJul 26 '13 at 18:09

Just my luck the rep was increased as I was closing in on a silver review badge.
–
Joe WJul 26 '13 at 18:47

4

As a lower-tier SO user that does reviews, I wanted to comment that this morning I was going to take a look at some review tasks and found that the "review" link no longer showed up. It took me some searching to find this thread and read through what was happening. While I agree with why this change (increasing reputation needed to review) was made, it would have been nice to receive some notice, esp since I had the ability removed. As other requirements may change in the future, could a method be implemented to notify users that the reputation requirements have changed? Common courtesy?
–
stevekohlsJul 27 '13 at 15:59

1

@stevekohls I understand the frustration but this is very special case, probably the first ever and likely it won't happen again, usually privileges are only added not changed like that.
–
Shadow WizardJul 29 '13 at 13:20

2

@Seth We didn't make this change because of robo-reviewing being a problem across the network. We made it because philosophically, it makes more sense for "first posts" to be reviewed by...well, people who have posted more than a few times. There are some downvotes on this suggestion, but only a few; most of the voters have agreed it makes sense. This change doesn't significantly alter the actual number of people reviewing in these queues; only a handful of active reviewers lost this privilege due to having less than 500 rep.
–
Laura♦Jul 29 '13 at 15:18

@Manishearth I actually feel pretty good about this change - there's now a notification and a privilege page dedicated to review at the moment you first gain access, whereas before the notification didn't mention review and the privilege page contained info about it only at the very bottom (which a lot of people never made it to).
–
Laura♦Jul 29 '13 at 15:20

1

@ShaWizDowArd seconding stevekohls. It'd be nice to get notification when a change is made be it more or less privileges without having to hunt through meta. Especially when advance notice and feedback are supposedly sought. I made reviews yesterday why not warn me then I can't do any more tomorrow? Not earth shattering but it seems like an easy opportunity to communicate in general.
–
UpAndAdamJul 29 '13 at 19:57

It depends if you're up for a little indoctrination or not... I think that, as a user around that sort of rep, you understand that questions sometimes get closed, or reopened. You're maybe trying to emulate (or fight against) the people who've been around longer voting on this. In other words, you understand something of the site.

Why not grant the view close and re-open votes privilege to every user at this reputation? That is, they can view every close and re-open vote, not just their own.

Yes, they won't be able to add their own in there but they can flag if they agree with the voter. Even better, they get to understand better what questions might not be suitable for SE. If a question has 4 close votes they might think twice about answering and flag instead.

It starts the process of people understanding, and most importantly having information about, what others believe is on-, or off-, topic on the site.

I like this, but I think it would also drive me crazy. I can see the up/down votes on 3 sites but I lurk/comment participate on 11, and it drives me nuts that on some of them I can't see the up/down votes. +1 anyways.
–
ryanJun 27 '13 at 21:40

1

This is the opposite though @ryan. It's about giving you information that you wouldn't otherwise have. Not only that you can do something about it through the flagging mechanism.
–
ben is uǝq backwardsJun 27 '13 at 21:43

What I mean is that I would like to see this information, however it would be another privilege that lets me see interesting information that doesn't travel with me to new sites. That's the part that drives me crazy. Hope that helps.
–
ryanJun 27 '13 at 21:45

3

Hmmm... this should be public to begin with, imo. Users should be able to see how close a post is to closure, and how many flags were cast against it.
–
user98085Jun 28 '13 at 0:40

2

I like making this information available earlier, though it seems a little odd to me that it should come before being able to see votes. Under this scheme I can see that a question is a candidate for closure but I can't yet see that a plausible-sounding answer is actually highly controversial because the +8 I see is really +20/-12. The latter seems more useful to me as a user, though what you propose is more useful to the community. Maybe the close tally should always be available, not rep-based.
–
Monica CellioJun 28 '13 at 13:18

1

I love this idea. One problem now with flagging to close is you don't know if the flag is really needed. I sometimes hate flagging semi-recent questions (couple of hours old on very active sites) because you don't know if someone already saw it and VTC'd it. But you don't want it to sit around and get ignored.
–
psubsee2003Jun 28 '13 at 14:41

4

One possible side effect of this privilege is someone could use it to boost their helpful flags (and flag weight) by flagging questions that they know are about to get closed so they can get the automatic helpful flag.
–
psubsee2003Jun 28 '13 at 14:45

14

@psubsee2003 You should flag when you think the question should be closed without worrying about how other people may be flagging or voting. I'm concerned that opening up viewing close votes at a lower rep level would result in more pile-on flagging.
–
Anna Lear♦Jun 28 '13 at 15:36

Grant chat privs to users who don't have enough reputation yet. Currently a user needs 20 rep to chat, but on some sites we often see a problem where a new user shows potential (worth investing in) but doesn't "get it" yet. I'd like to be able to get a user like that into chat, because the alternative is a conversation in comments -- an anti-pattern that we want to stamp out, not model. (New users also tend to have a forum mentality, so conversations in comments are the most natural thing in the world for them.)

Moderators can grant individual users access, but you need to ping a moderator and then wait. At 500 rep, people know the basics and we should be encouraging them to help the newcomers. This would enable them to do so.

I think this is an excellent idea! I don't spend much time on the chat, can you boot them out just as easily?
–
GaryJun 27 '13 at 20:42

Any chat moderator can boot any chat user, and if you flag a comment in chat that alerts mods.
–
Monica CellioJun 27 '13 at 20:44

5

This might be tricky. There are other issues at play - such as access to changing a given chat room's access list. Plus most chat stuff operates based on network-wide, not site-specific, reputation. I like this idea, but it might not be possible to implement without reworking how chat works, which likely isn't going to happen. (I know we have other chat privs tied to rep, but room creation works a bit differently far as I know.)
–
Anna Lear♦Jun 27 '13 at 20:48

@AnnaLear thanks. To clarify a bit (in case this helps), I see this as bringing a user into the site's main chat room (only), not creating a new room for him. The community is more likely to pitch in if they don't have to go to a different room -- which, being called by default "Discussion between X and Y", doesn't sound very open.
–
Monica CellioJun 27 '13 at 20:55

5

Even if this doesn't end up as the 500 rep privilege, this would be great as a different privilege for another rep level... :)
–
apnortonJun 27 '13 at 21:36

2

@BenjaminGruenbaum, I'm talking about giving a user with 500 rep tha ability to grant chat privs to others, not to get them himself. (You only need 20 rep to chat.) This is so we can chat with a new user about one of his first posts, instead of having a discussion in comments. I'm not talking about raising the rep needed to chat; I'm talking about allowing users to bypass it selectively for other users.
–
Monica CellioJul 3 '13 at 20:49

While this would be useful in some cases (Blender.SE recently did a chat event that could've benefited from it), I tend to agree with this comment - you shouldn't depend on chat for guiding new users; it doesn't scale, and needing it hints at a bigger problem with the site's scope and/or guidance.
–
Shog9♦Jul 16 '13 at 0:18

@Shog9, I agree that chat shouldn't be a necessary step, but especially with sites that seem to invite subjective answers, it sure can help. People coming in with a forum mentality don't see a problem with long comment threads (sometimes posting 3-4 comments in response to every one they receive), and it sure seems like getting them into chat to explain things a little more synchronously would be an improvement.
–
Monica CellioJul 16 '13 at 2:27

Well, there's already a function that encourages folks to go to chat when a discussion passes a certain threshold. Enabling low-rep users to chat in that context only and potentially adjusting the threshold for suggesting the move might be a more pragmatic option here.
–
Shog9♦Jul 16 '13 at 2:36

That's an interesting idea. It does seem to take a while before that gets triggered (particular if there are more than two people commenting); perhaps we need a way for someone to force a comment thread to that point earlier.
–
Monica CellioJul 16 '13 at 2:38

1

This is something we were looking at strongly, but at the moment, haven't been able to find a satisfiable implementation. It's still something we're considering in some fashion down the road, though.
–
Grace Note♦Jul 26 '13 at 15:13

@GraceNote, thanks for the update. I hope you can find a satisfactory implementation.
–
Monica CellioJul 26 '13 at 15:19

I've found that a common problem on Stack Exchange is that a question isn't reaching the right audience who could evaluate it, edit it if necessary, decide whether to close it, and (let's not forget that) answer it. A very important aspect of a question that determines its effective audience is its tags.

While suggested edits can be used to retag a question, they introduce an additional hurdle through a somewhat clunky interface, and they introduce a delay during which the question is still classified based on its old content and cannot be improved any further by sub-2k users.

At 500 reputation, you should begin to have an idea of the major tags used on the site. You should be able to figure out at least what the most important tags are for a question.

This could be done by using the existing ”edit” button, but making the edit effective immediately when only the tags have changed and the user has the retag privilege. The user interface would have to be tweaked slightly to indicate that a retag will not undergo peer review and not to require an edit summary.

Alternatively, this could be done by providing a separate “retag” button.

This is exactly the feature that they're planning on doing away with, right?
–
apnortonJun 28 '13 at 0:55

17

@anorton Yes, exactly. I just discovered it was being removed, and since I think it's a very important feature, I'm starting early on the lobbying to bring it back.
–
GillesJun 28 '13 at 9:34

1

@Gilles They can still propose changes to tags, so those who are interested can participate. Why is it important that the tag changes not be approved starting at 500 rep, given that (I would assume, given that it's being removed) there is a history of problematic tag edits from users in this rep range due to the lack of review.
–
ServyJun 28 '13 at 14:31

Could we have it for just one pair of upvotes? I often want to highlight a comment question and its answer, because the answer alone being displayed when the comments are elided doesn't make much sense.
–
Mark HurdJul 6 '13 at 1:21

We want users to seek out duplicate questions, however, experienced users should be the ones to confirm the duplicate. Therefore, if a question does not have outstanding close votes, let 500-rep users cast only duplicate votes.

The noise generated would be minimal; the effort needed to seek out a duplicate nearly ensures that users will find an accurate duplicate (or none at all). Additionally, if users' votes consistently failed in CV review, their privilege could be suspended or revoked, at least until they reached 3K.

Currently, any registered user can suggest tag wiki edits. I propose setting the minimum level for users to make such suggested edits to 500 rep. On graduated sites where creating tags requires more than 300 rep (1500 rep on SO), the tag wiki edit privilege could still stay at 500 rep.

Having a higher requirement for this privilege isn't so strange when you think about it. Voting to approve tag wiki edits already requires 5k, which is significantly more than the 2k required for edits on question and answer. Editing tag wikis without being reviewed (by trusted user) is currently the highest privilege at 20k, while typical edits don't require approval at 2k. So it's clear that tag wiki editing is already held to somewhat of a higher standard than Q&A editing, but that only applies on the higher end of the reputation spectrum at the moment.

Benefits for a (relatively low) bar for tag wiki edits:

By this point, the user will hopefully not be so concerned with the measly 2 rep gain per approved tag wiki edit. They'll be editing for the sake of making the tag wiki better, not to gain rep, which will hopefully lead to:

Fewer plagiarized tag wikis. A 500 rep user is at least hopefully aware of site policies by that point, and knows what our standards are for tag wikis. They're far less likely to take the lazy approach of copying from somewhere else than low rep users. As reviewer It've seen a fair share of plagiarized tag wiki by new users on both recreation beta sites, like Anime & Manga and graduated sites like Arqade. It wouldn't surprise me if this were the case on other sites.

People editing tag wikis are actually knowledgeable about the site. Hopefully they'll write good tag wikis which describe when the tag should be used on the site -- not just a definition of the term.

Adding this as a privilege may bring more attention to the fact that tag wikis can be edited, as well as how a good tag wiki should be written, which would be a overall benefit in my opinion.

Keeps the 500 rep bonus tag-related. While it might be not so important, it's compositionally pleasing and about the right level for users to start getting more deeply involved in the tag system, which is at the heart of the site for frequent users.

Potential issues:

It may be a bit strange to have 300 rep as the minimum to create tags, but 500 to edit tag wikis. Reversing the order of these two might be better as it doesn't make much sense for someone to be allowed to create a tag, but not suggest a tag wiki for it. This could also raise the bar for creating new tags.

Very low frequency tags may be less likely to get a good wiki, but I believe this seems like a minor issue.

This would be really interesting if combined with this
–
Shog9♦Jun 28 '13 at 2:54

2

While I can see where this is coming from, I don't think it's a good idea. Relatively obscure tags benefits from suggested edits from topic experts with little rep overall. Plagiarizing isn't going to go away with a rep requirement, I've had to undo edits by moderators that copied Wikipedia without attribution. The only good argument I can see is to promote tag wikis through an early privilege: this is an interesting idea, but the wrong implementation.
–
GillesJun 28 '13 at 9:38

I mean, the whole point of the 500 reputation milestone was retagging, but retagging sucked because you have to remember to hit the 'retag' button, not the 'edit' button — until the 'retag' button goes away at 2k reputation. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Since this is essentially an usability problem, fix it with the usability solution we already have. Also, this brings down a nice goodie all the way down from 10k-land where... it doesn't really belong.

Sounds underwhelming? Keep in mind the 1k reputation privilege, viewing split votes, isn't actually a privilege at all. This page is public although hidden and choke full of (occasionally useful) information.

This was my initial idea for this post. I didn't end up posting it because I thought there was a reason for 10k users getting it instead of everyone (Most probably to prevent newbies from using it willy-nilly). Still, +1
–
ManishearthJul 6 '13 at 20:21

@JonEricson While I think that privilege would be better at 100, and set up so that you can't let a bounty drop you below 50, waiting for 500 is way too high, I don't see the point at all.
–
GillesJun 28 '13 at 21:55

@Gilles: Setting bounties on other people's questions? (Maybe I'm an outlier, but I haven't offered bounties anywhere but the sites where I've accumulated a lot of reputation already.)
–
Jon Ericson♦Jun 28 '13 at 22:24

Currently it only takes 75 reputation to set a bounty. Since the smallest award possible is 50, that means that someone who tries out that privilege as soon as it's available will be knocked back to 2/3rds of their starting reputation. I've seen new users do this—often in response to a kind veteran offering a bounty on their question. Bounties are pretty advanced features and many users never need to set them. So 75 is probably too soon to start offering them.

I'd trust a new user with these privileges long before they are ready to offer bounties. To be honest, I'd probably swap Established User with setting bounties and make that the 500 mark privilege. The ability to give away all of one's reputation (which would be possible at 500, but not at 1000), while amusing, is probably not a behaviour we should encourage.

As an alternative (if setting bounties to attract attention on one's own questions is seen as too critical to wait for 500 or 100), perhaps established user should be moved down to 500 and setting bounties on other people's questions moved to 1000. While it would make the privilege ladder more complicated, it does separate a potentially critical privilege for a new user (getting one's own question answered) from a somewhat esoteric one (redistributing reputation points).

Why do you think bounties need to be restricted further? They are (on main sites, anyway) one of the most reliable, if not the only, way to attract more attention to a question. That sounds pretty important to me, even if the asker may not be an fully engaged site user just yet.
–
Anna Lear♦Jun 28 '13 at 21:50

@AnnaLear: Perhaps it's my experience on tiny sites (where every question is seen by active users) but bounties are not the best way to get questions answered. Worse, it can be a severe setback for someone who is learning the "Stack Exchange philosophy" by experimenting with new privileges. If someone is at 75 and their question hasn't been answered, I'm not sure that lack of attention is the most common problem. (And don't get me wrong, I love bounties. I just have seen new users burned by them too often.)
–
Jon Ericson♦Jun 28 '13 at 22:03

1

Oh, and by answered, I mean "get the answer that really helps the asker". Bounties are often collected by folks who post something for the reward, but who don't necessarily have a better solution than what's already been posted. That might be because the question wasn't very good in the first place.
–
Jon Ericson♦Jun 28 '13 at 22:07

+1 or maybe put this at 300 and move the current 300 privileges to 500?
–
tripleeeJun 29 '13 at 3:38

3

This would then move bounty-adding out of reach of users who get an association bonus on another site (101 rep).
–
MattJun 30 '13 at 15:27

1

@Matt: Good point. And it's a point in favor of the proposal, in my opinion. Is that really a use-case we should encourage?
–
Jon Ericson♦Jun 30 '13 at 20:27

Disagree: This is one of those brilliant features that it is almost possible to abuse to the detriment of the community. It is possible that their use might not be to their own best advantage, but nobody else looses. One case in particular I saw play out was a user who asked a high volume of low quality questions and regularly bountied off all his rep on a few of them. The net affect was the community didn't go bonkers with him and he (thankfully) never gained the rep to get VTC/VTO privs which based on his comments we were pretty sure were just going to add more drama to the situation.
–
CalebJul 3 '13 at 19:45

...late to the party, but in case this question is revisited for new privilege and rep level shuffles:

See vote counts!

There is no reason for that to remain at such a high rep level (1000), as it does not enable any powers to change to the site. There is also the argument that seeing up and down votes is beneficial to newer users as it provides a better view of how questions and answers are received on the site. (Even 500 would be too high, but it would be an improvement.)

On top of that, the 1000 rep level is titled "Established User", which seems even more like it should match up with privileges to shape the site.

Putting "see vote counts" at the 500 level (or lower) would solve all of this.

(Of course, you would need something more at the 1000 level if the chat room privileges granted there are not enough, but that's another question. At this point I nominate a swap between the 1000 and new 500 privileges, but other arrangements could work.)

That one is a combined proposal for letting users view close and re-open votes as well as see up and down counts for normal votes. The privileges sound similar, but I don't think they should be paired. I am saying that seeing normal vote counts is better suited for a lower level of familiarity with the site, and should come at a lower rep level.
–
A.M.Aug 3 '13 at 22:22

@DuncanJones ah, "pizzazz." I was trying to think of that word earlier, it's the shortest word I've found that's not playable in Scrabble. Thanks.
–
djechlinJun 27 '13 at 22:01

@djechlin There seems to be some disagreement over the correct spelling of "pizzazz". Some people only use one 'z' (either "pizazz" or "pizzaz"). In which case, I believe you could play it (based on this page and using two blanks to represent z's).
–
DuncanJun 28 '13 at 7:47

Users with 500 reputation should be already pretty familiar with the edit mechanism; while their edits still have to be reviewed, let's lower the amount of required reviewers by 1, at least to approve. This means that it will take only 2 reviewers to approve edit suggested by 500+ user on Stack Overflow, and one reviewer on other sites, like it was before the change.

From own experience in suggested edits, most edits from 500+ users are indeed good, bad edits usually come from low rep users. Of course there are still those who keep suggesting bad/invalid edits way after 500 and 1000 rep but still, in my opinion this will work fine and will make the users happy with their new privilege, hopefully encouraging more good edits.

Ehh.. I've rejected my fair share of bad edits from 1.5k users. In fact, I think it's worse right before you hit 2k - didn't everyone try everything to get rep when they were at 1.99k?
–
UndoJun 30 '13 at 21:06

@Undo one can earn up to 1000 rep from suggested edits so unless people don't notice they don't get rep anymore no, I don't think this is incentive to hasty edits. (which indeed might be bad)
–
Shadow WizardJul 23 '13 at 14:34

Double permitted votes at 500 rep (for comments and posts). By the time people get to 500 they're (at least hopefully) familiar with the site and what should be voted up and down. Additionally if they're part of a sock puppet ring they've hopefully been caught by this point. I often find myself hitting the vote cap and a relaxation of the cap would be very much appreciated (but I understand the danger for allowing new users loads of votes).

The vote cap serves more purposes than just mitigating fraudulent or inexperienced voting. The limited supply of votes helps maintain the value of a vote. Allowing a flood of extra votes would devalue them, throwing all the other aspects (how many rep points votes produce, etc) out of balance.
–
CalebJul 10 '13 at 12:10

(Please note I say that as somebody who already hit the vote limit a couple hours ago and cannot even add the -1 I would otherwise give this ;)
–
CalebJul 10 '13 at 12:18

@Caleb You know, if you supported this proposal you could vote it down... tempting no?
–
Richard TingleJul 10 '13 at 12:20

@Caleb Also thats impressive, I don't usually hit it until the evening
–
Richard TingleJul 10 '13 at 12:21

2

Tempting? Yes. A part of me would love to have world domination powers. However the more experienced part of me says that this would be a bad idea in the end. That's basically what I'm saying here: more voting ability is not necessarily a good thing for the economy.
–
CalebJul 10 '13 at 12:22